d600/d610 resale

fhibbs12

Senior Member
I have a d600 with a fresh shutter from nikon that has been collecting dust since I received my d750 as soon as it was released.

I was keeping it as a backup but haven't used it once.

I was thinking of dumping it for something smaller/light for my wife but still able to accept my 1.4 - 2.8 nikkon glass ive been collecting.

What would a good going rate for it be? Should I just chain return it to nikon intil they replace it and then sell the 610?

Also, whats a good lite package nowadays. I was thinking the d5500 but what about the nikon 1 line? Can they accept regular lenses also?
 

Bill16

Senior Member
The Nikon 1 will except other Nikon lenses, but only with an adapter. The V series is a fun camera and I like mine, but for a serious shooter it might not satisfy them as well as a DSLR would.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Used D600s (Bodies only) are selling (completed auctions) on eBay for $850-$1000
Used D610s are selling (also completed auctions) for $1000-$1200
 

hrphotography

Senior Member
but what about the nikon 1 line? Can they accept regular lenses also?

I recently acquired a Nikon 1 S1 to use it as a back up camera. Its nice and small and 5 times more versatile, but its only good at low ISO. even at ISO 100 (with long exposures) its showing considerable amount of noise. The noise is not like that of D610, its a "dirty" noise, i dont know how to explain that. I would recommend a compact DX rather than CX (Nikon 1).
 

fhibbs12

Senior Member
So I could pair it with my 50 1.8g and sell it for around 900 or haggle Nikon and get 610 for another 300. My time might be worth more that dealing wit Nikon.

Think I might just go that route. Maybe get her the 5500 with one of those all in 1 zooms.
 

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Well, you can go on the Nikon site and check the weight of their various bodies but if you could start her out with a 610 she would have a really good starting camera.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Between the 600 and 610, there is a USD $300 difference for a prescription owned cam. What would you guys decide if you are buying one?
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Honestly, unless you do 80% of F/16+ work, oil spots are a non-issue, and given Nikon willing to keep paying for that blunder, I don't see a reason not to save $300 and grab a used 24-85 to get started.

And as far as thread, when you already have a 600, I see absolutely no reason to bump to a lesser body simply due to weight. Sounds like Dr. Wife could do well with a 50/1.8D and the 600 and be miles better off than the hassle of sale and purchase of something lesser. Not to mention having a potential FX as a backup is MILES better than some entry-level DX.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
I dont see any reason to downgrade to a dx camera. The larger viewfinder and higher iso performance are huge pluses. The body is the same as a d7000 which is tiny so dont see why to downgrade.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
I dont see any reason to downgrade to a dx camera. The larger viewfinder and higher iso performance are huge pluses. The body is the same as a d7000 which is tiny so dont see why to downgrade.

Well, for me I guess there is only one. That is the cost of the FX glasses. They cost more than the camera body. if you upgrade and stick to the low end glasses then you wont get the full benefits.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Well, for me I guess there is only one. That is the cost of the FX glasses. They cost more than the camera body. if you upgrade and stick to the low end glasses then you wont get the full benefits.

there are third party companies that make great glass that rival nikkor. btw, you can buy cheap AIS primes and get top notch IQ for cheap.

and btw, you can use your dx lenses on the FF till you move all your glass to FF. I dont see any reason to downgrade though
 
Last edited:

SkvLTD

Senior Member
@rocketman122 Exactly! That 55/1.2 or 1.4 just doesn't have the same luster on DX as it does on FX. And likewise, "kit" 24-85VR can well squeeze far better results out of FX than 18-55 can out of DX, but the base gap is extremely noticeable. And viewfinder alone is gold to have in a proper size.
 

fhibbs12

Senior Member
Well, I traded it in.

I had her use it and the weight was just to much.

I let her pick what she wanted.

Her choice was the a6000 with the kit lens and the 55-210. The weight difference was huge and now fits in her purse. 950$ for the kit, caught it with like 300$ in rebates.
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
as a d600 user, which lenses would you like to have?

For a great all-around travel lens, the Nikon 28-300 was very versatile and reasonably sharp for three days of walking in Manhattan. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 with vibration control is a good lens to have. I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8, and use it for portraits on location (when versatility is important), but it is one heavy hunk of metal and glass. For primes, the Nikon 105mm 2.8 with a macro feature is really good, and so is my Nikon 85mm 1.4D and the Nikon 50mm 1.8. The 50mm is very lightweight and very sharp, and sometimes I forget that most of the shots I take with the 24-70 I probably could have gotten with the 50mm, and wouldn't have had to carry something so heavy. I also bought the Nikon 17-35mm 2.8, but almost never use it. Taking pictures of people is more fun to me than shooting landscapes or architecture. One of my favorites was an older Nikon 28-70mm 2.8 that was much sharper than everything else, but the electronics on that lens went bad, so I bought the Tamron.

My children are out of college, so I have splurged and bought most of the lenses I wanted for years (though all used from Craigslist). That said, if you don't want to spend thousands of dollars on glass, you could have a lot of fun with the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 G VR. I got mine used for $500, which was a very good deal. Keep your eyes on Craigslist, and some great deals really will pop up sometimes. You can lock that lens at 28mm so it stays short and compact while you are walking around.
 
Last edited:
Top